I've read in a few places that North America will be getting better diesel fuel similar to what's available in Europe in '08?


Does anybody know if this is true and the details?


What effect will this have in terms of power, fuel efficiency etc.?

The diesel fuel will be reformulated in 2006. This is to support emission requirement changes in 2007.


To meet these new 2007 standards, some form of exhaust after-treatment is envisioned (thus the requirement for the new reformulated fuel). They will be essentially lowering the amount of sulfur in the diesel fuel.Edited by: OC_DMAX

If they lower the amount of sulfur in the diesel fuel any more, what is it going to do to our trucks?


Is it going to be a repeat of the no lead gas, that was so hard on the old leaded engines?


I can see it now a new additive market called, sulfur additive.


http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Big Smile.gif

If they lower the amount of sulfur in the diesel fuel any more, what is it going to do to our trucks?


Is it going to be a repeat of the no lead gas, that was so hard on the old leaded engines?


I can see it now a new additive market called, sulfur additive.


http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/Big Smile.gif





You better patend your idea quick! I made an offhand comment about something like that once and it showed up on the market 5 years later. You never know what Stanadyne would pay you. http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/smileys/HiHi.gifEdited by: chuntag95

<H1><A name=A9></A>ASTM DIESEL LUBRICITY SPECIFICATION HITS WALL; U.S. EPA MIGHT HAVE TO 'FIX' INDUSTRY'S FAILURE</H1>http://www.worldfuels.com/nav01lt.gif (http://www.worldfuels.com/sample.php?DSFN#A8)http://www.worldfuels.com/nav01up.gif (http://www.worldfuels.com/sample.php?DSFN#A0)http://www.worldfuels.com/nav01rt.gif (http://www.worldfuels.com/sample.php?DSFN#A10)





PhoenixóAmerican Society for Testing &amp; Materials (ASTM) "E-2" (diesel) subcommittee this month failed by a single vote to move forward with a lubricity specification for diesel fuel.


Rather than moving to go ahead with a commercial requirement that would have taken effect around mid-2004, some refiners and pipeline/terminal operators said at ASTM meeting here they need more time - until at least Jan. 1, 2005 - to plan, procure, permit, budget and install required additive injection equipment before moving forward with a lubricity standard initially approved last June.


Problem: Their failure to move forward at this month's meeting means that another round of "negative" votes - citing other reasons to delay - could block action at ASTM E-2's next meeting in June. While ASTM's diesel lubricity task force plans to bring forth another ballot with language that effectively delays the compliance deadline until 2005, there's no guarantee this ballot will pass, either.


In ASTM, it takes a two-thirds voting majority to find "negative" votes as "non-persuasive." Minority action often blocks the majority, which in this case favored moving forward with the lubricity spec. So, this minority "blocking" could happen again and again at subsequent ASTM meetings, with each failure to act pushing industry ever-closer toward a commercial or regulatory crisis.


The net result could be that the North America's refining and marketing industry could fail to avoid feared lubricity problems with ever-higher-pressure fuel injection equipment (FIE) that will start to penetrate the U.S. market as early as next year, automakers and FIE makers warn.


U.S. EPA emissions regulations and performance demands by customers are pushing higher-pressure FIE such as common rail. But these systems are especially sensitive to lubricity problems found with some low-sulfur and ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuels.


But when industry fails to act, regulators will step in with inflexible mandatory limits:
<UL>
<LI>Citing ASTM's failure to act here, California Air Resources Board (CARB) just announced it decided to finalize its (once-tentative) August, 2004 mandate that California refiners must market "adequate" lubricity fuels of no more than 520-microns wear-scar diameter via high-frequency reciprocating rig (HFRR) test.
<LI>CARB seems "likely" to adopt an even more severe 460-microns limit for 2005 (as in Europe), as ASTM lubricity task force chairman Manuch Nikanjam (ChevronTexaco) revealed here.
<LI>U.S. EPA reveals it's now considering whether it likewise needs to act quickly to compensate for industry's failure to resolve

Good article, very informative.

I didn't quite get the gist of the article.


Can someone summarize?

The article was written in dec '03 - so when they refer to "next year" - they mean "this year"...

The main thing to realize is that there is no standard for lubricity enforced for the diesel fuel you are currently buying. 40-50% of the fuel currently sold doesn't have enough lubricity to make our trucks run reliably (e.g. injector failure).

I am adding a lubricity additive until it gets worked out. Good ones with a measured HFRR result that is acceptable are stanadyne performance formula, stanadyne lubricity formula and rotella dfa.

No new injector design, LLY, etc. is going to make up for diesel fuel that doesn't provide enough lubrication to the high pressure fuel injection system that comes in our truck. Expect the "injector problems" to continue until either...

1. The new standards are forced into place by CARB (kalifornia) and EPA.
2. GM (and now dodge too) are forced to buy us all case-loads of additive to make our fuel injection systems last...

- jeff


p.s. to you guys running mods, I would imagine upping the redline of the truck 30% would require even greater lubricity. Also, getting better fuel mileage with your "juice", "edge" or whatever may not necessarily be a good thing -&gt; less fuel to the injectors means less lubrication for them as well...Edited by: dmax lover

Glad to hear something moving forward on lubricity from multiple directions. Hopefully this pending legislative intervention doesn't create a spike in fuel prices or fuel shortage when it's enacted, but am guessing it probably will do one of the two.